The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1887-04-28
SHILOH.
Controversy Between Elk President
Davis and General Beauregard
Concerning the Conflict.
Beauregard Blamed for His Con-
duct After the Fall of
Johnston.

NEw ORLEANS, April s5.-Jefferson Davis has
replied to communication Of Gen. Beauregard
printed sunday, aninadverting on remarks OF the
former delivered at the time of the unveiling OF
the bronze equestrian statue OF Albert sydney
Johnston, at Metairie cemetery, In this county,
April6,
The president of the late Confederacy, says:
''rhe remarks were unprecedented and under
the circumstances it wouo have Deen very difficult
if not impossible, to make an exact report. IL
seems, however, to have been sufficiently clear TO
be understood by the writer of the communication,
who undertakes to reduce quotation u
plain language, and then in quibbling
explanation of his plain language, Shove
that he knew the trne meaning OF my
rem arks. If he did not, will aid his understand
ing by especially stating that, in my opinion the
only mistake of General Johnston in relation TO the
battle of Shiloh was in not personally making the
order of march from Corinth towards Pittsbure
landing, for which his large experience in the
movement of the troops peculiarly qualified him,
instead of entrustng that duty to General Beaure'
gard, his second in command, and who had seen
comparatively little service with troops in the
field. IT, in this day, as appears by coptemporane-
ous statements, day was needlessly spent on the
march, it was q mistake with serious con
assertion that l was mistaken in
supposing the telegraph dispatch had been lost in
which General Johneten explained 10 me his plan
of battle. To prove my mistaHe he makes the m
phatic announcement that 1t was not lost, One
might reasonably expect, after euch declaration
| that the dispatch described by me would be pro
| duced; bur, instead thereof, there is given dis
| patch recting the order of march from Corintf
and the assignment to positions on the field, and
this is offered as the telegram now occupying oul
| attenton-apoor fulfllment of the hope suggested
by the round assertion that the dispatch referred
| to by me had not beon lost. In regard Il
the lost dispatch | stated nothing new in my re-
| marks on the 9Th inst
Both dispatches were lost, but the one published
| was supplied from the original In the posses ion
of w. p. johnson 1t gave order of march ano
| the general disposition of the battle The order,
as stated was in cipher, agreed upon between Geh,
era Johnston and myself, and only used on special
| occasions The original, for obvious reasons, was
| not therefore, to be fonnd in his letterbook.
shall not notice In detail the self audation OF
| the long communication under review, but VII
| merely say that If General Beauregard was tht
author of the plan of the BATTLE If he was presen
throughout with the troops who fought, he was OIL
| the field when Johnston fell. IL the enemy mad
not been driven from point to point,
| and IL General Beauregard throughout the who'll
day before, we'll as after the death OF General
Johnston did direct and did, after the fall OF his
chief actively press the attacks 30 that the right
and center of the enemy began to give way In con-
fusion after General Beauregard had assumed com
mand and If the order to retire was not given unit
after an attempt to make concentrated onslaught
had been made, but which, as he stated, was desul
tory, without spirit or order, and failed In effect
and If 1t was not until just before sunset that he
ordered cessation of hoetilities, then many eye
witnesses of good repute have greatly missed al
important fact in regard to the battle OF Shiloh
and especially as to how victory well-nigh wor
and how it was forfeited. The assertion will no
be refuted from a mass of weighty evidence tina
has been adduced
| have not the disposition to enter into this con
troversy, and did not mention General Beauregard
either by name or official designation, In my re
| marks on the 9th inst. He undertook to make
plain reference to himself what might have beeI
generally supposed to belong TO some
staff officer but of which he knew he was the right
iu owner, and claimed his own, and proved that
could not refer 20 anything which happened on Tn,
field of Shiloh, 1t would have been more perti
nent If he had shown that the order OF march hat
not been the cause of delay In the arrival of th
troops at the point of junction"